So often I see UPG treated as "untouchable" concerning the validity of a path or belief. If someone says that in their UPG Mars is a god of love and peace, no matter how much people and the mythologies may disagree, no one ever says "That's wrong." (This of course does not apply to all groups.) So, can UPG be "wrong"? Or, how can we know that our UPGs are "right"?

It can be subjectively correct but objectively wrong, so to speak. If someone wants to believe that Mars is a God of "love and light" (to use the easy stereotype), they are free to do so, but they should also not expect that interpretation to be held as authoritative by anyone else, in such a way UPG is unfalsifiable but also unverifiable, being a douible edged sword of sorts. If the actions or feelings of a specific deity are contrary to those from the mythological tradition they are sourced from, how does one identify them as Mars?

Anything you experience, from waves of light passing through the lenses of your eyes and imprinting images on your retina, to touch and taste, to divine metaphysical experience MUST be processed by a human brain before any meaning can be attached to it.

So while UPG can (and likely is) deeply important to an individual it's not a 'get out of jail free' card that you can use to validate any belief.

SPG - Shared Personal Gnosis - would then be more reliable (though still not immune to error) as multiple brains are involved.

and that is as it should be. Each individual has the right to decide what he or she thinks something or anything should or does mean based on experiental or first-hand knowledge. Whether that UPG is valid, right or true or not doesn't negate this right.

Here however are the two underlying caveats IMO that are implicit within that right.

No one has the right to expect that anyone else will be obliged or required or mandated to accept, recognise or acknowledge that this is what X means to him or her as well for no other reason than someone else's UPG.

No one has the right to expect that this meaning of X by reason of it being his or her UPG must also be accepted by any consensual groups (religions, traditions, working groups or as Dromhair so elegantly put it by SPG.

I added the bold to The Celt's comment here because that one word - want - is the core problem with taking UPG too seriously. It can be really hard to leave your wants at home and just interpret something on it's own merits rather than what we want it to be.

and that is as it should be. Each individual has the right to decide what he or she thinks something or anything should or does mean based on experiental or first-hand knowledge. Whether that UPG is valid, right or true or not doesn't negate this right.

Here however are the two underlying caveats IMO that are implicit within that right.

No one has the right to expect that anyone else will be obliged or required or mandated to accept, recognise or acknowledge that this is what X means to him or her as well for no other reason than someone else's UPG.

No one has the right to expect that this meaning of X by reason of it being his or her UPG must also be accepted by any consensual groups (religions, traditions, working groups or as Dromhair so elegantly put it by SPG.

C.H.

I suppose I should have been clearer. It should have said something like, "X means whatever I want it to because it's my UPG, and everyone else must therefore agree with me."

--I suppose I should have been clearer. It should have said something like, "X means whatever I want it to because it's my UPG, and everyone else must therefore agree with me."-

You were quite clear the first time, Celt and your clarification still aligns to my IMO.

Anyone has the right to decide that X means whatever he or she wants it to be because it was his or her UPG. It is called having an opinion, albeit one that may be based solely on an unique experiential validation.

No one has the right to demand that everyone else must therefore agree with them simply because their opinion is based on UPG. This is called having an expectation, which no one else is obliged to satisfy on demand. It might also be called the argument of children in an adult situation.